Questions for the anti-Lordship Salvation people..

[jcjordan]

I’m against Lordship salvation; the term "anti-Lordship" shows prejudice.
Those that are against Lordship salvation still believe in the Lordship of Christ.

My problem with Lordship salvation is that it puts the cart before the horse.
It doesn’t separate the results of salvation from the requirements for salvation.

Your questions don’t reach to the heart of this matter.

Rob

I never claimed anyone was "anti-lordship". I was very careful to call it "anit-lordship salvation". I've never pre-supposed that that the NLS crowd had a problem with the Lordship of Christ.

 

[jcjordan]

O.K...just reading through this short thread, I'm realizing the Lordship Salvation debate is really a debate about when regeneration takes place. The NLS crowd claims the LS crowd requires works for salvation. However, the NLS people need to realize that us LS people believe that any good work we do is a result of the Holy Spirit regenerating us. We believe that it is totally impossible to do anything to get ourselves to heaven...God must do the work. We believe that before we can believe or have faith, God must give us a new heart. This is what we call being "born again". We believe if one is truly "born again" that there will be a change in behavior...mostly a new attitude and hatred of sin. We believe that if God regenerates someone, than His name is at stake if there is no change toward a love of righteousness. What I've not seen as being fair in this arguement is that some of those against Lordship Salvation continue to sladerously claim that the position teaches salvation based on works without stating that it is all a series of works by the Father, Son and Holy Spririt.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Since I subscribe en toto to but one 'creed,' namely



I can offer no other, but I would offer that I have also asked that posters not use the pejoratives "non-lordship" and "no-lordship," since they are misleading, at best, totally inaccurate, and a questioning of someone's salvation at worst. This request has apparently fallen on deaf ears, as well.

Anyone who can type multiple posts in a given day, and I include myself in that number, can certainly find the small amount of additional time necessary to accurately label a position with the one I hold on this subject being discussed as that of "Non-Lordship salvation", IMO.

Ed

Ed:

Glad you put the Bible up. I use a Bible avatar at my blog because so many put up pictures or books by MacArthur or Hodges.

Anyway, the "no-lordship" label is not going to go away. It is part of the political gamesmanship in the debate to demonize and paint ALL who reject LS into one extremist camp. In his books I think it is safe to say that MacArthur uses those labels and others like them hundreds of times.

This tactic is much like how the liberal media tries to portray Bible believing fundamentalists. The media will use the term "Fundamentalist" interchangeably for Muslim extremists and Bible-believing Fundamentalists. It is a way to demonize the one by the excesses of the other. That practice is found in the LS debate.

The reductionist Crossless gospel teaching of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the Grace Evangelical Society is heretical in its own right. Their views are legitimate targets for criticism and rebuke, but as Dr. Pickering noted, this does not give MacArthur the right to change the terms of the Gospel.

In any event, MacArthur uses the "no-lordship" label and makes the application to any who reject LS whether it comes from the heresy of Hodges or from more biblically balanced positions.


Lou

 

[Goldie]

I will be making a thread regarding creeds and confessions. I

Whaaaaa............t? Another LS thread? :laugh: I think I'm already all "LS'd" out. raying:

 

[Revmitchell]

It appears some who support the NLS now want to be self created martyrs as well as trolling mulitple boards with this stuff. It is a shame the gospel must be cheapened in such a way.

 

[EdSutton]

Totally unnesessary comment!

Absolutely. :applause:


Yep, it doesn't separate the root of the believer's faith from the fruit of the believer's faith.


True.

His books are good - good for starting a fire and barbequing on a Sunday afternoon. My only concern is being poisoned from the ink of his signature Gag.......... cough......... splutter.............

With all respect, I suggest I am as strongly opposed to the teaching of Lordship salvation as any on this board, and have been thus for almost 40 years.

That said, this 'crack' is totally uncalled for, because frankly, I see no reason for those of us who believe basically as I do, to lower ourselves to that tactic, which I have been decrying in others.

Ed.

 

[Goldie]

That said, this 'crack' is totally uncalled for, because frankly, I see no reason for those of us who believe basically as I do, to lower ourselves to that tactic, which I have been decrying in others.

I wasn't lowering myself, nor was it a "tactic" - I was joking hahaha???? If you can't laugh at a joke, please don't take your bad mood out on me. Rather ignore it, unless you want to make a big issue out of petty things. I find your lack of humour rather painful, and perhaps that's the reason why no-one listens to you. You seem to harp on the negatives and ignore the positives because it makes you feel good to pinpoint and magnify everyone else's "tactics". Perhaps you should write a book instead on "how to make friends and influence people".

The definition of a joke: (for those who don't know)
Something not said seriously, or not actually meant; something done in sport.

And the truth be told - If I had any of John MacArthur's books they'd go straight into the trash can, I wouldn't waste my time burning them. And that's the truth and not a joke, so try not to get too excited about it.

O! Hail! Caesar!

 

[Marcia]

Marcia, you are being 'baited' here, IMO.

Ed

I thought that might be the case (I admit I can't always tell and often plunge in too late -ha!) but decided to answer anyway. I'm thinking, "if I answer as biblically as possible, let's see where it goes."

I like the idea of LS and non-LS camps about as much as I like Calvinist/non-Calivinst camps. This is my view: :BangHead:

I am not putting myself into a LS or non-LS camp because it seems there is still disagreement as to what a LS view is.

 

[jcjordan]

I thought that might be the case (I admit I can't always tell and often plunge in too late -ha!) but decided to answer anyway. I'm thinking, "if I answer as biblically as possible, let's see where it goes."

I like the idea of LS and non-LS camps about as much as I like Calvinist/non-Calivinst camps. This is my view: :BangHead:

I am not putting myself into a LS or non-LS camp because it seems there is still disagreement as to what a LS view is.

Marcia, I wasn't baiting you. There are no traps.

 

[Marcia]

Marcia, I wasn't baiting you. There are no traps.

Okay! That's good to know!

 

[swaimj]

So far, three NLSers have actually responded with substance to the questions posted on this thread. However, no one on the LS side has responded to the things of substance that have been said. Instead we have pictures of Bibles and pictures of John MacArthur. Typical and very telling!

 

[Rippon]

Change Your Attitude

And the truth be told - If I had any of John MacArthur's books they'd go straight into the trash can, I wouldn't waste my time burning them. And that's the truth and not a joke, so try not to get too excited about it.

It wasn't that long ago that I welcomed you as a new member of the BB.

But these kinds of 'jokes' are very distasteful.Wait a minute.It's a joke,but it's not a joke at the same time. That's nonsensical.

Do you read books by any Christian author?Since John MacArthur has written rather extensively on so many biblical subjects -- I really don't understand your venom.His book Charismatic Chaos did not deal with LS for instance.Most of his material may prove to be beneficial to your spiritual growth.He is a brother in the Lord despite what Lou says.

 

[Revmitchell]

So far, three NLSers have actually responded with substance to the questions posted on this thread. However, no one on the LS side has responded to the things of substance that have been said. Instead we have pictures of Bibles and pictures of John MacArthur. Typical and very telling!

This is an inappropriate attack. The op addressed a specific set of people:

Therefore I would like to see the following questions answered by the non-LS people:

Substance has been hashed out on numerous threads trolling this board and at least one other.

Your accusation is misleading, unfounded, and ridiculous.

 

[swaimj]

Substance has been hashed out on numerous threads trolling this board and at least one other.

I said there has been no substantive response on this thread. That statement is accurate and now encompasses your response.:flower:

 

[jcjordan]

I said there has been no substantive response on this thread. That statement is accurate and now encompasses your response.:flower:

Upon starting this thread, I had no intention to debate any of the answers, only to ask for clarification on a few issues. I just wanted to know what these non-LS people thought. Now I'm being told that my questions were "entrapment" and that all John MacArthur books belong either on the bbq or in the trash can. I really didn't think my questions would bring about such reactions.

 

[Revmitchell]

I said there has been no substantive response on this thread. That statement is accurate and now encompasses your response.:flower:

Yea I addressed that. Since this thread was addressed to NLS your attack is inappropriate.

 

[swaimj]

I really didn't think my questions would bring about such reactions.

There are all kinds of people on the BB, so you get various reactions and responses. However, you got some very thoughtful answers from NLSers. Little that is thoughtful has been stated in response to those answers.

I pointed out that one of your questions assumed an answer that no one who is NLS would give. Perhaps you could rephrase that one and someone will address it.

 

[swaimj]

Yea I addressed that. Since this thread was addressed to NLS your attack is inappropriate.

It is not inappropriate. LSers DID respond on this thread even though it was addressed to NLSers. None of them interacted with the serious answers that were put forth by three (I presume) NLSers. Rather they responded with pictures of John MacArthur and pictures of Bibles. Actually, I guess I should be impressed with their response. At least they didn't post pictures of JM drawn with crayons! :laugh:

 

[Havensdad]

It is not inappropriate. LSers DID respond on this thread even though it was addressed to NLSers. None of them interacted with the serious answers that were put forth by three (I presume) NLSers. Rather they responded with pictures of John MacArthur and pictures of Bibles. Actually, I guess I should be impressed with their response. At least they didn't post pictures of JM drawn with crayons! :laugh:

I find your comments offensive. Most of us "LS" individuals are well educated, and very much able to articulate a blistering biblical defense against any charges you might level. However, since this thread is addressed to "Anti" Lordship people, I did not respond.

If you will kindly restate the responses in an appropriate thread, I will be more than happy to rip them to pieces.

Thank you,

Signed,
A "stupid individual, who believes in the Lordship of Christ"

 

[swaimj]

Chill out, dude! LSers responded on this thread with humorous pictures of JM and the Bible. I tweaked them with a little humor of my own. No harm done. No offense intended.

NLSers are about done with anwering the questions, it appears. I don't think anybody will be bothered if LSers respond to the NLSers' comments, so, give us all the intellectual fire-power you can muster, my friend, but keep that Texas temper under control